The good news for Republicans in 2010 is they’re ahead in 6 races for Senate seats now held by Democrats and lead or are tied in 6 open seats where Republicans are retiring. In the House, Republicans figure to win a minimum of 20 seats, as things now stand. They’re a good bet to have a majority of the nation’s governors after the midterm elections in November. The bad news? There is no bad news.
Okay, the stream of good news is occasionally interrupted. In Connecticut, Democratic senator Chris Dodd, of Countrywide sweetheart mortgage fame, is retiring rather than face likely defeat in November. The new Democratic candidate, state attorney general Richard Blumenthal, will be tougher (but hardly impossible) to beat. In several states—Washington and Oregon come to mind—Republicans haven’t come up with strong Senate candidates yet. And a few more Democratic retirements are probably needed for Republicans to gain 40 seats and capture the House.
But Republican shortcomings are mostly correctable. The problems facing Democrats are mostly not. There’s no way, for example, to turn Deval Patrick, the ineffectual and unpopular governor of Massachusetts, into an attractive candidate for reelection. His Republican opponent, Charles Baker, raised twice as much money in six months as Patrick did in all of 2009.
Nationwide, the Republican trend is picking up speed. Charles Cook, the election guru, issued his 25 “latest ratings changes” last week. All but two took note of improved Republican prospects in congressional races. In polling by Scott Rasmussen, Republicans widened their lead in the generic ballot to a 9-point preference for Republican House candidates. Meanwhile, the Democratic “brand,” as measured by Gallup, continues to fray.
Democrats find consolation in their lead—49 percent to 41 percent in Gallup—in party identification, though their number just dropped below 50 percent for the first time since 2005. They’ve also persuaded themselves that 2010 won’t replicate 1994, when Republicans gained 52 House and 8 Senate seats and took control of Congress. This time, Democratic majorities remain “safe,” as Politico put it.
I don’t think so. A few months ago, the consensus in the political community was that Democrats would gain Senate seats, bolstering their current 60-vote majority. Now the consensus is Republicans will pick up 3 to 5 seats. That would put Republicans in a position to take control in 2012, when 24 Democratic but only 9 Republican seats will be at stake.
In 2010, the Democratic seats in jeopardy—those with Republican candidates leading in polls—include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s in Nevada. Reid has already spent $1 million on TV ads in a state with only two media markets. But he trails both Republican contenders, state Republican chairwoman Sue Lowden and Danny -Tarkanian, the son of famed basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian, by 6 points in the latest Rasmussen poll—that is, outside the margin of error.
In Colorado, Democrat Michael Bennett, appointed to his Senate seat, is running behind Republican Jane Norton, a former lieutenant governor. He says he’s for Obamacare, opposed by most Coloradoans, even if it means losing the election. It might. After years of decline, Colorado Republicans are resurgent. Bennett has a formidable primary foe, former state house speaker Andrew Romanoff.
Arkansas is a hotbed of anger against Obamacare. Yet Democratic senator Blanche Lincoln voted for it. Four Republicans are seeking the Republican Senate nomination. She trails all four.
In Delaware, Republicans have their best possible candidate in moderate congressman Mike Castle for the seat vacated by Vice President Biden. Castle leads all potential Democratic opponents, including Biden’s son Beau, the state attorney general.
Pennsylvania looked hopeless after Senator Arlen Specter switched parties and became a Democrat. No more. Specter has a tough primary struggle against Democratic -representative Joe Sestak. Republican Pat Toomey has surged ahead of both of them. With Democrat Byron Dorgan quitting, North Dakota is all but certain to elect a Republican senator, as it should have years ago. In Illinois, Republican congressman Mark Kirk is running even in the race for President Obama’s old Senate seat.
The six open Republican seats are the flip side of the Democratic ones: Once highly vulnerable, they are growing safer. Florida, in fact, is a near-cinch to go Republican, whether Governor Charles Crist or ex-house speaker Marco Rubio wins the primary. Kansas is similar. The Republican nominee, whoever it is, undoubtedly will win the seat of Sam Brownback, who is a prohibitive favorite to be elected governor.
In New Hampshire, former state attorney general Kelly Ayotte not only leads in the Senate race, but Republicans have a solid chance to win one or both of the state’s House seats. In Ohio, where a Republican revival is in full swing, Rob Portman, a former House member and the budget chief in the George W. Bush administration, leads two potential Democratic opponents.
Kentucky is a special case. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell feared Jim Bunning, his fellow Kentuckian, could not win a third Senate term and forced him to retire. Polls put two Republicans, secretary of state Trey Grayson and eye surgeon Rand Paul (Ron’s son), ahead of any conceivable Democratic candidates.
Missouri, where Republican Kit Bond is retiring, is unique in a different way. Roy Blunt, the ex-House Republican whip, and Democrat Robin Carnahan, the Missouri secretary of state, are household names. Blunt spent eight years as secretary of state, and his son Matt was governor from 2005 to 2009. Carnahan’s father was governor, mother a U.S. senator, and brother a current House member. Blunt and Carnahan are in a statistical dead heat.
Like Ohio, Missouri is a bellwether state, though Obama narrowly lost it last year. The Republican trend, especially if it continues to accelerate, is bound to aid Blunt. “Nothing has been as helpful as the Washington Democrats’ agenda,” he says wryly. “The credit goes to Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, and I believe Harry Reid may have joined them and deserve credit.”
Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican deputy whip, has a method for figuring what Republicans need to win 40 seats. It’s based on the percentage of Democrats who lost in 1994 after voting for one or both of two issues, taxes and guns, and applying those percentages to calculate how many might lose in 2010 after voting for two other issues, Obamacare and cap and trade. The answer: not enough.
When those losers are added to the expected gains from open House seats, the number of pickups comes to only 29. That might be sufficient to deny Democrats an operating majority in the House, but they’d still have nominal control.
McCarthy’s conclusion is that more Democratic retirements, thus more open seats, are required. In 1994, Republicans won 70 percent of open seats. With a mere 11 open Democratic seats, even that success rate wouldn’t produce a Republican majority.
So McCarthy, as the chief recruiter of Republican candidates for the House, has been lining up challengers to veteran Democrats who might be nudged into retirement rather than face tough reelection battles. His targets include committee chairmen like Dave Obey of Wisconsin, John Spratt of South Carolina, Ike Skelton of Missouri, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, and Collin Peterson of Minnesota.
If they don’t retire, they might be ousted in a wave election, like 1994, in which Democrats are defeated across the board. The 49 Democrats in districts carried by John McCain in 2008 or in districts rated by Cook with even a slight Republican tilt—they’ll all be vulnerable if a wave develops.
Republicans have come close to lining up what McCarthy calls “top tier” candidates in every district that might conceivably elect a Republican. Among these: the Chicago district once held by Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s White House chief of staff. McCarthy told the Washington Post:
You get enough people on their surfboards, you send them in the right direction and see how many can get to shore. If the wave is big enough, we get there. But if you don’t have them out there and you see the wave coming, it takes too long to paddle and try to turn around and catch it, so you gotta be prepared.
Republicans are prepared. “We’ve played nothing but defense for two cycles [2006 and 2008],” McCarthy says. Now they’re ready to play offense. The only drawback is money, a correctable shortcoming. “At the end of the day, we don’t need as much money as the Democrats to win the majority,” McCarthy told Politico.
Money is no problem for the Republican Governors Association. It has $25 million on hand even after spending lavishly to elect governors in Virginia and New Jersey last November. Democrats have 26 governors, Republicans 24, and Republicans have the modest goal of gaining a majority of governorships.
That should be easy. What’s significant is that Republicans have impressive candidates in several major states with Democratic governors: Baker in Massachusetts, state attorney general Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania, former House member Scott McInnis in Colorado, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker in Wisconsin, ex-senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota (assuming he runs). And they have reasonable prospects, given the Republican trend, in California, Michigan, and Illinois.
For 2010, the telltale state is Ohio. It went for Obama in 2008, but his approval there fell below the national average late last year. Ohio has a lousy economy (10.6 percent unemployment), a weak Democratic governor with budget and tax problems (Ted Strickland), and two powerhouse Republican candidates in statewide races (ex-congressman John Kasich for governor, Portman for Senate).
Ohio is ahead of the national curve. Its economy was sour before the recession hit. Efforts by Strickland, who is seeking reelection, haven’t helped. And an income tax cut scheduled for April has been cancelled. “If you think the poll numbers are bad for Strickland now, just wait until April,” says Republican consultant P.J. Wenzel. “It’ll be brutal.”
Ohio voters are desperate for anything that might create jobs and income. Four times they had rejected referendums to allow gambling in the state. Last fall, they voted in favor of casinos in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo, 53 percent to 47 percent.
Republicans in Ohio are experiencing role reversal. Steve Stivers is running for the House this year after losing narrowly in 2008. “I feel the momentum this time going my way as opposed to fighting against the current,” he told me. “I don’t think there’s any reason to be defensive in 2010.”
In 2008, when he talked about issues like the national debt, “people’s eyes kind of glazed over.” Democrats ran a TV ad with his picture and his mouth moving but President Bush’s voice coming out with cheerful platitudes about the economy. A Bruce Springsteen (pro-Obama) concert was held across the street from a facility where people could register and vote immediately. Thousands did, particularly students at Ohio State. Stivers figures most voted for the Democrat who beat him, Mary Jo Kilroy.
Like Stivers in Columbus, former Republican congressman Steve Chabot in Cincinnati is running against the Democrat who defeated him in 2008, Steve Driehaus. Given the advantages Republicans have this year, both have excellent shots at winning. So do Portman and Kasich. My guess is all four will be elected. Two reasons. One is Republicans have a powerful edge in 2010 on issues and turnout. The other is the Republican trend is likely to hold at least through the November election and perhaps longer.
It’s clear from every poll and survey over the past six months that a majority of voters has turned sharply against the agenda of Democrats and Obama. It’s not what most voters expected, not what they wanted, and far too liberal for a center-right electorate.
As pollster Scott Rasmussen points out, the electorate in 2010 will bear a resemblance to voters over 40 years old in 2008, a majority of whom went for McCain. “Older voters are more likely to show up at a midterm election than younger voters,” Rasmussen said.
There’s also the enthusiasm factor. Republicans and conservatives are more excited about politics today than Democrats and liberals. That affects turnout. The Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey last year “show that the turnout model will be different from 2008,” according to Rasmussen. It will not only be older and whiter, but also more conservative and more inclined to vote for Republicans.
But will the Republican revival really continue? It should. The economy, with unemployment stuck at 10 percent, won’t break into a robust rebound any time soon. And Obama can’t change course and alienate his liberal base before the first midterm election of his presidency. After the election maybe, if Democrats suffer landslide losses, but not before.
The important thing about the Republican recovery is that it didn’t occur overnight and may be more durable than Democrats and the media expect. It came in two stages. The first began last February, after congressional Republicans voted overwhelmingly against the economic stimulus created by Democrats. That rallied the Republican base and helped spur the Tea Party movement.
The second and more important stage came last summer when Congress took up health care. The trillion dollar cost of Obamacare, plus other spending plans, terrified independents. That inspired a full-scale migration of independents away from Obama and Democrats. Since then, Republicans have led in voter preference for congressional candidates by increasing margins.
Democrats are flummoxed. Their counterattack consists of tying Republicans to George W. Bush. “That’s the mistake made by the British Empire,” an Ohio Republican told me. “They’re fighting the next war like they fought the last one.” In 2006 and 2008, the Bush tactic worked. In 2010 it won’t. And the Republican recovery rolls on.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
